linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RESEND] LEDS-One-Shot-Timer-Trigger-implementation

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Sun, 15 Apr 2012 10:35:52 -0600
From:	Shuah Khan <shuahkhan@...il.com>
To:	Richard Purdie <richard.purdie@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc:	shuahkhan@...il.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, neilb@...e.de,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RESEND] LEDS-One-Shot-Timer-Trigger-implementation


> Having looked at the code and read through the thread and Andrew's patch
> review, I'm left wondering why you didn't add a new trigger for this
> functionality?
> 
> The reason I ask that there do seem to be a number of questions about
> backwards compatibility and this also seems to complicate the standard
> timer trigger in non-obvious ways. Having a new trigger for this
> functionality would allow for a much clearer namespace and no backwards
> compatibility issues. It also means additional functionality can be
> added later in a contained place. I'm wondering if there is a downside
> to a separate trigger I'm missing?

I finally :) understand your question about why I didn't add a new
trigger. I don't see any reason why I should a new trigger should not be
added and it does make it clean without no backwards compatibility
issues. I will get working on that and get back to you.

Thanks,
-- Shuah

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/